Thailand: Breaking Down Reuters' "Class" Lies by the Numbers

Baseless narrative disingenuously portrays Thailand as divided along class, rather than united against regime.

December 14, 2013 (Tony Cartalucci) - Thailand's embattled regime
has long fashioned itself as the champion of the nation's north and
northeast rural poor - and its opponents, essentially the rest of the
nation - as aloft elitists which also inexplicably includes hardworking
middle class, and much of the nation's central and south, including
laborers and farmers. It is a myth that the regime's extensive Western backers are also helping perpetuate, but is one that is easily dispelled with irrefutable hard statistics and common sense.

Image: Even a cursory examination of the anti-regime protesters
reveals immense diversity in both its constitution and it grievances
against the regime - from labor unions, Buddhist sects, business owners
both big and small, to ordinary workers from both labor and middle
classes. Reuters' hit piece is designed to disingenuously malign the
protesters, portraying them all as spoiled rich snobs. Of course, with
hundreds of thousands of protesters turning up at mass rallies, even at
face value one should spot the deception.

Chitpas Bhirombhakdi is heiress to a $2.6 billion family fortune and,
according to high-society magazine Thailand Tatler, one of Bangkok's
"most eligible young ladies". She can also handle tear gas and ride a
tractor.

On December 2, as anti-government demonstrations in Bangkok turned
violent, the 27-year-old climbed aboard a front-loader brought in by
protesters to break down police barricades.

Chitpas, whose family owns the Boon Rawd Brewery that makes Singha
Beer, had dismounted the machine long before police pelted it with
rubber bullets and gas canisters. But her gung-ho act showed how members
of Thailand's most celebrated families are discarding all past pretence
of neutrality to hit the streets in the hope of toppling Prime Minister
Yingluck Shinawatra.

Along with their wealth and privilege, these elite protesters share a
declarative love of Thailand's aging King Bhumibol Adulyadej and an
abhorrence for Yingluck and her brother Thaksin, a billionaire ex-prime
minister ousted by a 2006 military coup, whom they accuse of corruption
and abuse of power.

For many in Bangkok's high society, anti-government rallies have
supplemented - if not quite replaced - customary haunts in posh hotels
and restaurants, although only a dwindling hardcore of less privileged
protesters sleeps rough on the street.

The biased tone of the story almost reaches out and touches readers,
begging to be believed. Throughout the article Reuters' Andrew RC
Marshall cites a total of 6 anecdotal tales of wealthy protest
participants in an attempt paint the entire movement as elitist, but
cites absolutely no statistics or evidence to give readers an honest
idea of the actual makeup of the opposition.

After imbuing readers with the perception that protesters are merely
elitist snobs, it goes on further to portray them as condescending as
well. Quoting entrepreneur Petch Osathanugrah, Reuters states:

His opinion of the mainly rural Thais who voted for Yingluck is
unsparing but typical. They are ill-educated, easily swayed and greedy,
he said, and their willingness to sell their vote to Thaksin-backed
politicians renders elections pointless.

However, Reuters' cherry-picked representation is not only dishonest as a
demographic representation of the protesters, but also dishonest in
portraying the actual grievances of the protesters. The attempt to
portray them as fascistic for rejecting elections is also a gross,
intentional misrepresentation as we will soon see.

Demographically speaking, even by the most conservative estimates,
December 9, 2013's anti-regime rally drew at least 150,000 protesters
(though actual numbers reached near a million). These six anecdotal
cases then constitute a meager .004% of even 150,000, and it is doubtful
indeed that there are many more "billionaire heiresses" amongst the
hundreds of thousands that continuously turn up for mass mobilizations.

Considering that Reuters spent no time qualifying the narrative they've
attempted to foist upon unsuspecting readers one might wonder what the
truth of the matter actually is. What do honest, objective numbers and
analysis actually say?

To understand just how far off Reuters and the regime are about their
"class divide" myth, one needs to go by actual numbers, tellingly
missing from both Reuters' propaganda, and the regime's.

35%: The number of eligible voters, according to the Thai Election Commission's
final tally for the 2011 elections, that actually voted for the
Shinawatra regime. Were we to believe Reuters, that would mean the other
65% of all eligible voters were billionaire urban aristocrats - an
absurdity even at face value.

48%: The percentage out of those that did bother to vote who
voted for the regime - meaning Thaksin Shinawatra's proxy party did not
even garner a basic popular majority in the last election.

7%: The number of Thais who identify themselves as "red," or
supporters of Thaksin Shinawatra and his political machine. Another 7%
identify themselves as only leaning toward "red," for a grand total of
14% - this according to the Asia Foundation's 2010 National Public Perception Survey of the Thai Electorate - full .pdf here).

3,000:
The approximate number of innocent people mass murdered by the Thaksin
Shinawatra regime in 2003 over the course of 90 days in what he called
his "war on drugs." It would later be revealed that nearly half of those
killed had nothing at all to even do with the drug trade. Human Rights Watch (HRW) would confirm this in their 2008 report titled, "Thailand’s 'war on drugs'," a follow up to the much more extensive 2004 report, "Not Enough Graves."

The brutal campaign was wildly popular amongst Thaksin's supporters.
The fact that those who do support Thaksin Shinawatra seem not to care
or understand basic concepts like "human rights," "trials," and the
"presumption of innocence until proven guilty," is in fact what leads
some to call the regime's remaining supporters "ill-educated,
easily swayed and greedy" - as Reuters published - and why some may
believe that "their willingness to sell their vote to Thaksin-backed
politicians renders elections pointless."

In Conclusion...

The
childishly simplistic "class divide" Reuters and others have
disingenuously attempted to lay over Thailand's political landscape in
reality does not fit. There is no division, only an attempt by the
regime and its Western sponsors to create one. This is to justify the
insidious tactics of violence, intimidation, and corruption that has
propped the Shinawatra's up for now nearly a decade, and to portray the
anti-regime protesters in a manner that will earn the contempt of
Reuters' unsuspecting international readers.

Reuters
did not omit statistics or actual evidence by accident or because it is
incompetent, but because it is intentionally deceitful. A professional
journalist, or even a careful reader, can easily recognize the weasel
words, lack of actual statistics and facts, and the logical fallacies
employed by Reuters in its attempt to buttress the crumbling regime and
portray the protesters as spoiled, fascistic brats - a narrative peddled
by the regime itself and its gaggle of propagandists.

Indeed
- the 2003 "war on drugs" which left 3,000 in their graves and the wild
popularity this crime against humanity to this day still has amongst
Thaksin Shinawatra's supporters has terrifying implications for
Thailand's future if this despotism is left unchecked and allowed to
fester. A "democratically elected" government put into office by an
electorate that cannot grasp the basics principles of a democratic
society is not democratic at all. It is brutal, exploitative despotism
shabbily dressed in the trappings of democracy, defended by shameless
foreign propagandists working for equally insidious corporate-financier
interests and is an immediate danger to Thailand, its people, and its
future.